Goleta Planning Commission Vote Stalls Westar Mixed-Use Project

» Really? on 08.01.12 @ 09:37 AM

There are many disconnects with the statements of Goleta Staff and the project description.  “It would include 274 residential units, 19 one-, two- and three-story buildings, pocket parks, open space, stores and restaurants on the first floors of the southern portion.”

Unless I missed some thing Goleta Planning Staff stated there would be 255 vehicle trips generated by this project.  Ok, if there are 274 residential units I would be willing to bet the number of auto trips will be a minimum of 548 per work day just for residents. 

Chair Wallis seems to dismiss this issue.  She was on the original Council that backed plans to permanently cripple Old Town Hollister with an unrealistic circulation plan that includes taking off on street parking, expropriating land for paid parking lots, narrowing Hollister to two lanes, and the cherry on the sundae building two roundabouts on Hollister when less expensive alternatives are available that are more bike and pedestrian friendly.

This is nothing more then kick the can down the road and ignore things so the voters will not pick up on it until it is too late.  Streets and intersections need to be planned for a minimum of 80% of highest use, not lowest daily average.

The Planning Commission approved the roundabout on Calle Real and Los Carneros ignoring both the congestion causing issues and the development that will make it obsolete.

Remember folks, elections have consequences, and just because fantasy land sounds good does not mean it works.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» AN50 on 08.01.12 @ 11:26 AM

Good point Really?. They just recently approved a “lane diet” for the western portion of Hollister from Pacific Oaks road to Ellwood. A normal community would recognize that free flowing traffic is safer and better for the environment and thus seek to increase capacity rather than restrict it. Not here. Nope in the insane and totally coercive philosophy of local government we want to make the driving experience miserable and unsafe in the hope that people will abandon cars altogether and walk or ride our bikes to Costco. So, on the one hand we demonize development and on the other we torture the populous and all this to make it more pleasant to live and work here?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Really? on 08.01.12 @ 12:44 PM

Really?, you’re wrong on several counts here.  Live-work units, under accepted trip generation practice, do not generate a.m. and p.m. peak hour trips.

Live-work units = the key assumption.  Just how long do you think this will be the accepted practice?  It did not work in Santa Barbara in the long run.  Los Angeles did a major high density project on Flowers and the reported traffic use for “alternative” (walking to work-subway etc.) is 10% of the total residents, same for a major development in Pasadena.  In other words they commute.

“Second, the roundabout at Los Carneros and Calle Real with designed to support buildout development and maintain an acceptable level of service based on traffic model data.”

I find that comment more than amusing.  When the City of Goleta was asked to produce a formula through either their staff or Caltrans proving this design process and speed, they decided not to answer….  Not to say no we will not provide it, or here it is, they just did not answer.  As is proven and accepted traffic modeling when you narrow a road from multiple lanes to one lane you get congestion at rush hour.  That is what they have done at all three entrances.  The stated speed here is supposed to be 25 miles per hour, and that is what Caltrans claimed at 246/La Purisma it did nor does it work at peak hours.  example: The City of SB stated there would be no peak hour backups at Milpas St. roundabout and that proved to be false.

The comment “Incidentally, roundabouts are as expensive, and in some cases less expensive, than a traffic signal.” begs the issue. 

    First, the traffic signals on Hollister are already in and paid for.  The Ekwill issue can be solved if needed by a stop sign…far less expensive.

    Second, the city has a Hollister clover leaf design submitted years back by businesses that (a) is less hazardous to pedestrians and bikes then roundabouts, and (b) eliminates the issue of left turns across Hollister (east side) makeing walking and biking safer without digging up one piece of concrete or sidewalk. 

    Third, to do a major change to a primary corridor will take a minimum of $1.0 to $1.5 million per roundabout (2 are planned for Hollister).  Want to bet it will be closer to $2.0 each?

    Fourth, the original Caltrans plan called for a “T” off ramp a block from Dearborn eliminating the prohibited right turn stop by creating a single safe intersection into Hollister.  Since both are currently obstructed this is a less expensive and easily installed option.  Again ignored by the city. 

As the City of Santa Barbara has unfortunately found, a roundabout is more dangerous to pedestrians and bikes.  The Federal Pedestrian guidelines for pedestrian access to minor or major roundabouts states any cross walk has to be set back from the roundabout “because of the danger” of pedestrians entering a traffic circle.

    Fifth, as stated in the past years by former council members (O’Connell-Wallis-etc.) the intent to slow traffic fails with roundabouts since the exit speeds are greater then a controlled signal intersection.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.